Aquatic Plant Forum banner

Long term experience with PPS Pro?

36K views 68 replies 16 participants last post by  forddna 
#1 ·
Has anyone had any long term experience using PPS Pro? If so can you post it?

I’ve been using PPS Pro for about 18 months. I still do 10 – 20 % water changes per week. I test regularly for KPN. Over 18 months I’ve noticed that TDS based on conductivity gradually increases requiring occasional more than 20% water changes. I’ve also noticed that K tends to build up and PO4 and NO3 decline requiring additions of Ca(NO3)2 and KHPO4.

I do have to say that I have been very successful growing every plant that I’ve tried to the point that I have thrown out way more plants than I ever bought (even some considered difficult like Cabomba Furcata). The problem is that without regular monitoring of KPN levels, these fertilizer elements eventually get out of control using a fixed once a day plan (without radical water changes).

It seems to me that any fixed once a day plan (without radical water changes) is doomed to failure since it doesn’t account for the individual nature of each tank.

What is your experience?
 
#2 ·
Very interesting that you should ask this question. I have just discovered that I'm having issues with PPS Pro as well.

I set up my tank (75 gal) in November 2008 right before the AGA convention and began using Seachem products (Flourish, Flourish Iron, Flourish Trace, & Flourish Excel). I was testing the water several times a week in order to find out how much my particular tank needed, and discovered that it was taking a ridiculous amount of these products to keep the nutrient levels where they should be. I started reading on APC about dry ferts, so I bought some and began using them with the Flourish products. Again, I was testing a lot, and I came up with a general idea of how much of each dry fert. that I needed to add. I was adding 3/8 tsp KNO3, 1/4 tsp KH2PO4, 10 mL Flourish Trace, 20 mL Flourish, 90 mL Flourish Iron, and 15 mL Flourish Excel every other day (I was very busy with work so I was trying to get away without having to dose every day). These amounts of fertilizers were keeping the tank at around 12 ppm NO3, .26 ppm PO4, and Fe barely detectable. The plants were growing super fast, with my Hygros getting out of control, and my Swords growing huge leaves. However, I was getting really tired of having to do all of those tests and dosing all of those products, so I started reading about alternatives. In March I decided to start using PPS Pro. I have been dosing it ever since, with about 7-8 mL of each solution every day. I do a 30-50% waterchange every 3-4 weeks, depending on my schedule. I basically stopped testing, since I was under the impression that I didn't need to. After switching fertilization styles, the plants slowed way down, but still seemed to be doing fine. The Hygros became more controllable, and the Swords grew to a more reasonable size. My Crypts and Anubias seemed to do about the same with either system. However, over the last few months I have noticed that my Hygros (polysperma and corymbosa) have started doing very poorly. They've been losing leaves, with their stems breaking and just looking like crap overall. The other plants seem to be okay. The other day I read the post by Diana Walstad about nitrates inhibiting growth on some plants, and began wondering if that may be the case. My nitrates were off the chart (Seachem test kit, only goes to 50 ppm)!! Iron was around .1 ppm, and PO4 was at .65 ppm. I did about a 50% water change, cleaned the gravel, and cleaned the canister filters. Then I checked it again a couple of days later, and the NO3 was still off the chart! This time Fe was .14 ppm, and PO4 .3 ppm. I guess the next step is to verify that the test kit is accurate, but that will have to wait until I have time. Otherwise, I'm not sure what to do, especially since I just mixed up a fresh batch of PPS Pro.

Andy
 
#3 ·
I guess the next step is to verify that the test kit is accurate, but that will have to wait until I have time. Otherwise, I'm not sure what to do, especially since I just mixed up a fresh batch of PPS Pro.

Andy
While I cannot be 100% sure I'm fairly certain that your test kits are OK. I am very anal about accuracy in my testing and I always use a positive control and a blank when testing. I read the adsorbance of the solutions on my spectrophotomer. I have never met a test kit that was bad.

I think people say this because when adding or removing fertilizers the results are usually not linear in a tank. This leads people to believe that the test is bad. If you did that kind of recovery study in plain tank water, you would find that the results are linear.
 
#5 ·
Interesting thread but confusing to me as well.
Edwards statements as I understood them were that PPS required weekly testing but PPS pro was fine tuned to eliminate the need LOL. (wish he would resurface on the topics)
Opted to use PPS and downloaded all available information, excel spread sheets, calculators etc.
While not a user of PPS pro but the original PPS system my results are the same as Ray in that TDS and NO3 steadily climb while other readings decline. Based on testing PPS has included in the system spread sheet a Discus Solution that nowhere else is mentioned in the dosing guidelines.

My tanks slowly drift between BBA and GDA as the TDS readings steadily rise but never land stable for more than two weeks at a time.
Still fine tuning formula amounts other than trace solution that is applied by tank volume daily.
 
#6 ·
Hello again,

Time for an update. On Monday (Sept. 7), I tested the nitrate again just to get another base reading, and it was again way darker than the color chart, indicating to me that it was still way higher than 50 ppm. This time I also used the reference sample provided by Seachem with the test kit, and it tested correctly, so I also believe that the test kit is okay. I also checked my tap water (which is well water, by the way), and it showed 3-4 ppm NO3. I then did another large waterchange (40-50%). I mixed up a new batch of the macro solution, but this time without the KNO3, and have been using it to fertilize the tank since then at about 7.2 mL a day. I just finished checking the nitrates again, and it now appears to be around 40-50 ppm (so hard to tell when just looking at a color chart that goes from light to dark). Still not where it needs to be, but getting better somewhat.

Now to answer some questions.

ray-the-pilot: I also am very anal when it comes to measuring, so even though I am human and am capable of making a mistake, I'm pretty sure that the ferts. were mixed according to the recipe on the PPS pro thread. I have a digital scale that I have checked with calibration weights to ensure the accuracy, and try very hard to make sure that everything is measured correctly.

wkndracer: Actually, if you'll go back and look, ray-the-pilot is actually having problems with his K going up, and his PO4 and NO3 going down. I on the other hand, am having problems with the NO3 going up. I don't really know enough yet to determine what is happening with any of the other parameters, other than they look like they are what is considered acceptable right now (which after reading many more posts about fertilizing, appears that many different people have very different ideas about what is acceptable, even to the point of REALLY arguing about it - I'm just trying to grow plants that look nice so me and my fish will be happy).

I don't have a TDS meter yet (definitely plan to get one though), so I have no idea what that reading is.

I am also of the opinion that this "one fertilizer recipe for everyone" thing isn't looking like it is going to work out so good. It seems to me that if one tank has lots of nutrient "hogs" in it, and another tank has light feeders, then how can they both be okay with the same amount of fertilizer? I switched to PPS pro because I thought that it would be nice to not have to test all the time, and I also would rather not have to constantly be changing the water. I've often learned that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Thanks for the assistance, and I'll keep you updated.

Andy
 
#7 ·
Time for another update.

I just finished checking the NO3 again, and this time came up with approximately 18 ppm.

I decided to start easing back into the nitrate fertilization, so I took a bottle and mixed up a solution consisting of 75% macro without KNO3 and 25% macro, normal recipe. I'll continue fertilizing for the next few days and see if the NO3 continues to go down, stays the same, or goes back up.

Andy
 
#8 ·
Have you been checking PO4 and K levels?

BTW I just purchased my first bad Nitrate kit!

I know that it is bad because I have a running data log for my 20 ppm reference standard. For the past 18 months the 20 ppm reference had an adsorbance of .3 - .4. With my new kit the adsorbance fell to 0.18. When I added additional developing reagent, the adsorbance increased back to .35.

I believe that the developing solution wasn't mixed properly during filling and my particular bottle has too little zinc (needed to reduce the nitrate to nitrite).
 
#9 ·
Just checked NO3 again, and this time found it to be around 23 to 24 ppm (assuming that my Seachem test kit could actually be that accurate).

Ray-the-pilot: I haven't been checking PO4 every time because honestly I thought that since the last few times that it had been checked it had been okay, so that maybe I didn't need to check it every time. However, I just checked it also and came up with about .3 to .4 ppm. I don't even own a potassium test kit. It seems to me that they are rather difficult to find. The only ones that I were able to find fairly quickly were one by Aquarium Landscapes (which it seems most people don't like too much) and one by LaMotte (which usually means expensive). Based on other posts that I've read by you, I'm guessing that you use the LaMotte one. Do you think that I should get a potassium kit, and if so, which one? Speaking of LaMotte kits, I bought nitrate and phosphate LaMotte test kits back in 2000, and then got out of the hobby until last November. Since I knew that they were old, I bought two new Seachem kits at the AGA convention auction. However, I still have the old LaMotte kits. The nitrate kit expired 12/10/00 (but was only used one time), and I can't find an expiration date on the phosphate kit (which was never even opened). In your experience with test kits, do you think that these would still be okay to use? If so, would they give better, more trustworthy results than the Seachem ones that I've been using?

By the way, although it is still early to tell, I believe that my Hygrophila polysperma is starting to grow like it should again. The jury is still out on the Hygrophila corymbosa. I noticed that many of the Crypt species leaves have melted, but I have experienced leaf melt from them over the years anytime something changes, so I'm not too worried yet. It definitely isn't that widespread, so I'm hoping that they are just acclimating themselves to the lower nitrate levels.

Thanks so much for your help.

Andy
 
#10 ·
I have a LaMotte K test kit. It is a turbidometric test (the K causes a precipitate and the turbidity is related to the amount of K present). The test comes with a device that is used to measure the turbidity but I’ve never used it. I have a spectrophotometer and I measure the turbidity directly in it and compare that measure with a K reference standard. Measuring K this way I can find my tank values to +/- 1 ppm. I couldn’t get the device that came with the kit to agree very well with the spec method but then I wasn’t really trying.

The way I check my kits is with a spectrophotometer. I make several references say 0, 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 ppm. Test each standard using the kit and measure the absorbance of each. If the absorbance of each is linear, when compared to the concentration, the kit is good.

Now that I think about it, you could make reference standards at the same points in the color chart. If the color you get with each reference standard agrees with the chart, your kit is good. After this first test I guess you could run your sample using a high and low reference standard. If your sample is between the high and low limits you can be fairly confident that your tank water is in range. I’ve never done this but it seems like it will work.
 
#11 ·
Hello again,

I just checked my NO3 and PO4 again. Using the Seachem test kits, I measured 23 ppm NO3 and .4 ppm PO4. I also used the reference sample included with the Seachem Phosphate test kit to check it for accuracy, and it appears to be correct.

Just out of curiosity, I also tested using my LaMotte kits that I bought back in 2000. The Nitrate kit (with the reagent that expired 12-10-00), gave a result of .5 as NO3-N, which according to the instructions you multiply by 4.4 for NO3, so only 2.2 ppm. The Phosphate kit, which had never been opened and didn't even list an expiration date, gave a result of .9 ppm Orthophosphate. I don't even know what that means to compare it to the Seachem kit. My guess is that both of these LaMotte kits need to have the reagents replaced. I haven't made the time to mix up my own references, but maybe I'll do that eventually. I still have a lot of tests left with the Seachem kits, so I'm not too worried about it.

Keep in mind that I've been fertilizing since the 15th with a macro solution that only has 25% of the normal amount of KNO3. I have no idea what that has done to the potassium levels, since I still don't have a kit to test it with. I'm going to keep fertilizing at these levels and see what happens.

Andy
 
#12 ·
Andy

I'm glad to see that your tank is doing better. I have enjoy reading your update. Keep it up.

IMHO, any dosing schedule that does not include a water change is going to cause problem. Any extra fertilizer that is not consume by the plants will eventually reach dangerous level. With water change included in a dosing schedule, the tank will eventually reach a steady state. When steady state is reached, the amount of chemical put into a tank equals the amount taken out by the water change). The water change acts like a barrier. It does not allows chemicals to get above a certain amount.

The Krib has a very good article about chemical level and water change.
 
#13 ·
I'm glad to see that your tank is doing better. I have enjoy reading your update. Keep it up.

IMHO, any dosing schedule that does not include a water change is going to cause problem.
Thanks for the words of encouragement! It's nice to know that I'm not just posting this information for the heck of it.

Actually, I do perform water changes on my aquarium; just not as often as some people. I normally do one 30-50% water change per month. I was having this large buildup of nitrates even with monthly water changes!

I tested the NO3, PO4, and Fe yesterday before doing my monthly water change. This time the NO3 was 20 ppm, the PO4 was .3 ppm, and the Fe was .5 ppm (!?). The nitrate and phosphate seem to be staying fairly constant using this modified macro solution. However, for some reason the iron is much higher than normal. The last time that I checked for Fe it was at around .14 ppm, which was back on September 1st, and I've done a water change since then. However, I had done a water change on August 29th, too, so I guess that it is possible that the iron has been building up over the course of a month ever since I started using PPS pro. Unfortunately, I wasn't testing (again, since I didn't think that I needed to). I guess that I also need to clarify that I haven't used the reference sample provided with the Seachem test kit to check for accuracy yet. That's because I'm going to have to make up a liter of solution first, and haven't found the time. I'll check it eventually because I'm really curious if this test kit is to be trusted.

I guess for right now I'll continue dosing the same way that I have been for the last few weeks. I'm curious though if maybe I should back off on the amount of micro solution that I dose. Since it is just CSM+B, I can't really alter the Fe amount. I hope that reducing the entire micro solution dose won't cause problems with deficiencies of any of the other elements in the solution.

Andy
 
#15 ·
Okay, ray-the-pilot, you've helped me make up my mind.

I decided to go ahead and drop the micro fertilization down a tad and see what happens. Since I have an infusion pump, this was actually very easy. I just punched a few buttons to reprogram the rate, and went with 33% less than what I had been dosing.

Hopefully this weekend I can check my iron test for accuracy and see what the levels are then. I imagine that since you said that it seems to build up, I'll probably have to wait several weeks to get a better idea of how this change affects the tank. I'll keep you updated.

Thanks,

Andy
 
#16 ·
Time for another update.

Yesterday I checked the nitrate and phosphate levels of the tank again: NO3 - 17-18 ppm, PO4 - .4 ppm. I feel pretty comfortable with those readings since I have recently checked the test kits for accuracy. I am continuing to fertilize with the macro solution as I have been since September 15th.

However, like I mentioned in my last post, I hadn't checked my iron test kit yet, so I decided to do so. The instructions say to take "1 L (1 quart) of RO, deionized, or distilled water", and add 1 drop of the Iron Reference Stock that comes with the kit. Then you are to use this prepared reference solution as the sample in the iron test and should get a reading of .4 ppm. I feel like there is a lot of room for error doing this procedure, but I tried as hard as I could to follow the instructions perfectly. I bought a gallon of distilled water, and then measured out exactly 1 L. I then practiced with the sample pipette at creating drops, and then added exactly one drop to the water. After shaking it up and then letting it sit for awhile, I performed the test. Unfortunately, I came up with a level of .06 ppm in the sample solution. Since I don't know how I could possibly have performed the reference test any better, I believe that the test kit is not reading accurately. For what it's worth, I also tested the aquarium water, and came up with a reading of .15 ppm, but now I don't feel that I can use this as an accurate measure of the actual iron content. For now, I have left the micro fertilization rate the same as in the last post (33% less than PPS pro calls for).

My guess is that I need a new iron test kit, but which one? I have read a lot of posts here from people that basically say that iron test kits are unreliable and not worth buying. Suggestions?

Thanks,

Andy
 
#18 ·
Time for another update.

Yesterday I checked the nitrate and phosphate levels of the tank again: NO3 - 17-18 ppm, PO4 - .4 ppm. I feel pretty comfortable with those readings since I have recently checked the test kits for accuracy. I am continuing to fertilize with the macro solution as I have been since September 15th.

However, like I mentioned in my last post, I hadn't checked my iron test kit yet, so I decided to do so. The instructions say to take "1 L (1 quart) of RO, deionized, or distilled water", and add 1 drop of the Iron Reference Stock that comes with the kit. Then you are to use this prepared reference solution as the sample in the iron test and should get a reading of .4 ppm. I feel like there is a lot of room for error doing this procedure, but I tried as hard as I could to follow the instructions perfectly. I bought a gallon of distilled water, and then measured out exactly 1 L. I then practiced with the sample pipette at creating drops, and then added exactly one drop to the water. After shaking it up and then letting it sit for awhile, I performed the test. Unfortunately, I came up with a level of .06 ppm in the sample solution. Since I don't know how I could possibly have performed the reference test any better, I believe that the test kit is not reading accurately. For what it's worth, I also tested the aquarium water, and came up with a reading of .15 ppm, but now I don't feel that I can use this as an accurate measure of the actual iron content. For now, I have left the micro fertilization rate the same as in the last post (33% less than PPS pro calls for).

My guess is that I need a new iron test kit, but which one? I have read a lot of posts here from people that basically say that iron test kits are unreliable and not worth buying. Suggestions?

Thanks,

Andy
I actually have a Seachem Iron test (I think you have the same based on how you test the accuracy) and find it to be extremely accurate. I did the 1 drop in distilled water test and got a reading that looked very close to the .4ppm. The thing I don't like about it is the sliding color chart. It's hard to compare the shades to me especially at low (0.0-0.2ppm) and high concentrations (above .5ppm or so). I recently discovered in my 125g tank that adding 1/2tsp of CSM+B 3x per week like described in EI is way too much for my tank. I'm backing down to 1/4tsp 3x week and see what happens.
 
#17 ·
Iron test kits are crap, I never believed it either, then I bought one. The only time I ever get a reading is RIGHT after dosing. I have heard several reasons why this is 1. Fe is is taken up so quickly by plants that test kits do us no good. 2. The test kits are just inaccurate, which it is I am not sure. Probably a combination of both.
 
#19 ·
Fe precipitates out rather quickly that is why you don't find any after time. With PPS you add the equivalent of 0.15 ppm every day. The result for me, has been a significant build up of iron precipitate in my substrate and filter.
 
#26 ·
Man, I've been busy at work lately. Add on top of that, my hot water heater is starting to give trouble, so I think I'm going to have to make some time to replace it.

Oh well, I managed to find time to test for nitrate and phosphate again. This time the NO3 is 25 ppm and the PO4 is .19 ppm. I'm a little confused as to why the PO4 has gone down this time. I'm not sure if I should adjust my recipe or not. Given the fact that it was stable for the last month until now, I'm thinking that maybe I should just ride it out and see if it changes any more. The only thing that is different since last time I checked is the 33% less micro ferts, but I'm not sure if that would cause the PO4 to go down or not.

I started a post to help me decide about which TDS meter to buy, but that flopped. I don't have any better idea now than I did before.

I also still don't know if I should buy a LaMotte Iron test kit, a new Seachem Iron test kit, or just rely on some Mayaca. I am trying to buy some Mayaca but don't have any yet.

I still haven't bought a Potassium kit, either.

Andy
 
#27 ·
I get very confused about the optimal concentration for macro. The first place I read about this was at Chuck dosing calculator. It suggests 5ppm for N, 20ppm for K, and .5 - 1 for P. This site suggests 10-20ppm for N, 10-20ppm for K, and .2-2 of P.

Is there suppose to be a 1:1 ratio for N:K, or is K always suppose to be higher the N? Is there an optimal ratio for the three macro?
 
#29 ·
Just tested nitrate and phosphate again. Found NO3 to be 20 ppm and PO4 to be .3 ppm. This is back to the same types of readings that I was getting before, so I'm not sure what happened last time. Maybe I didn't get the reagents shook up enough or something. Anyway, I decided to increase the KH2PO4 by 50% to see what type of difference that makes. Even though my Hygro polysperma is making a comeback, the oldest leaves are forming holes and falling off. Looking at the deficiency chart in the fertilizing forum, I'm not sure if I have a phosphate problem or a potassium problem (or both), but I figured that this might be worth a shot. I'm thinking since I've backed off on the KNO3 by 75%, I might be having more of an issue with the potassium, but I'm not sure. I'm working on getting a potassium test kit from Lamotte, but it might be awhile (they said they need ten days lead time to get one ready). Hopefully I can get one ordered soon and can then check my levels.

To follow up from last time, the Mayaca is growing some, but I think it might be too early to tell if it is truly happy or not.

Andy
 
#30 ·
Now nitrate is at 16 ppm and phosphate is at .45 ppm. The increase in KH2PO4 resulted in exactly what I had hoped according to the water test. However, I haven't been able to tell too much of a difference with the Hygro. polysperma. It's still losing the older leaves as it was before the increase. It is still growing, so that is definitely better than it was before I decreased the KNO3. The Hygro. corymbosa is still not doing too much at all. It appears to be just barely hanging on. A couple of the stems of Mayaca have made it to the surface already, and all of it seems to be doing good and growing. I'm not exactly sure if it is the right color of green to indicate good iron levels, but I think that is. I have ordered Lamotte potassium and iron kits, but they aren't here yet. I'm just too anal retentive to totally rely on plant growth. I know that I should, but I just like to know the facts. I'm going to keep fertilizing at the current levels for a little while longer to see what happens.

Andy
 
#31 ·
Lamotte potassium kit came today (ordered iron kit from another supplier because of cost, but isn't here yet). Tested the water and was quite surprised to find it somewhere between 30 and 40 ppm (not sure if I'm interpreting the results exactly right, but I just wanted a ballpark figure anyway). I actually was expecting it to be much less since I'm dosing KNO3 at only 25% the level that the recipe calls for. I'm a little confused as to exactly where it should be, since there are conflicting recommendations. However, Edward said that K should be 1.33:1.00 of NO3, so if that is true, my K should be around 29-30 ppm. Since mine is in that territory, I won't try to increase the K right now. The NO3 tested at 22 ppm and the PO4 tested at .45 ppm. I'm still not getting the results that I'd like to see with the Hygro. polysperma, but it is doing better. In fact, it is showing branching growth on it's own. In the past, it would just grow straight to the surface, and the only way I could get it to branch was to trim it back. It had grown all the way to the surface and was heading to the front of the tank, so I trimmed it and replanted the trimmings. I haven't had to do that in a really long time. I decided to increase the KH2PO4 dosage by 100% of the called for amount in the recipe this time. I'm guessing that will take the amount in the water up to about .6 ppm, but we'll have to wait and see. Hopefully that won't take the K up too much (I don't remember enough about molar chemistry to do the calculations, and in all reality, don't really care that much. I just hope it works).

Andy
 
#33 ·
How much CO2 do you use Andy?
Hello Edward,

I'm not exactly sure how to quantify the CO2 that the tank uses. I'll try to answer your question to the best of my ability, but let me know if you have other questions. I use a 20 lb. cylinder with this system: http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=3578+3747+9933&pcatid=9933.

I have the needle valve set for quite a few bubbles per second counted at the bubble counter - I would guess probably 5-10.

I have this drop checker: http://http://cgi.ebay.com/Drop-Checker-CO2-pH-Test-Live-Plant-Aquarium-Tank_W0QQitemZ400085845351QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item5d26f98567. It is filled with 4 degrees KH water that I mixed up using distilled water, baking soda, and lots of testing. As far as I know, it is the way that it is supposed to be. It always reads from light green to almost yellow.

I just swapped out the CO2 cylinder this past Monday, and it had first been installed on April 5th (about 7 months). That cylinder had been in use since November 12, 2008 (about 5 months).

I have the pH controller set to turn on the CO2 at approximately 6.8 and turn off at approximately 6.6. The GH is usually between 9 to 12 degrees, and the KH is usually around 8 to 9 degrees.

Like I said, I'm not sure if this is what you needed, but let me know if not. I'm really interested to get your input.

Thanks,

Andy
 
#34 ·
Hi
I think you are pushing your plants too much, pH 6.6 at 9 KH indicates 68 ppm of CO2. At this turbo rate plants are tall, long, unhealthy and susceptible to algae. If you lower your CO2 you give plants more time to develop into better quality plants. Of course changes must be done slowly over time, plants don't handle changes well. Go to pH 7.0, 24-27 ppm CO2 and see how plants respond. Is your high KH natural or you adding something to increase it?
 
#35 ·
Hello again Edward,

Thanks so much for addressing the issues that I'm facing. I apologize for not getting back sooner, but I had gone to Grand Cayman for a week to SCUBA dive.

However, I am somewhat confused by your recommendations. You mentioned that if my tank water has a pH of 6.6 and a KH of 9 that I would be looking at 68 ppm CO2. I went back and re-read the information on this relationship just to make sure that I wasn't mistaken, but it seems to me that you have not taken into consideration other buffers, such as phosphate, in the tank water that skew the relationship. That's why I put in the drop checker with 4 KH water. As I said before, it always indicates anywhere from light green to almost yellow. I have read where many other people no longer use drop checkers (or never even started), and simply watch their fish for signs of distress. I have never witnessed a single fish gasping at the surface as I have read that so many others have had happen when their CO2 levels went too high. I have intentionally checked at all times of the day just to make sure that the fish are always okay. The only reason that I bumped up the CO2 levels was to try and irradicate a large amount of BBA without having to use chemical warfare (Excel). I also haven't noticed my plants being tall, long, and unhealthy, although I'm probably not the best person to ask to judge proper plant growth. I just updated my journal with current photos, so maybe you could check them out and tell me what you think. The plants aren't really growing all that fast, but they seem like they are doing okay to me. The only exceptions are the Hygro species, which seem to be doing better since modifying the PPS pro recipe. In fact, I'd say that the polysperma is almost back to normal, and the corymbosa appears to be finally growing again. It's not that I don't want to lower the CO2 levels; I just question whether they really are too high.

To answer your question about the KH of my water, there are two reasons why it is high. The first is that I use well water, which when I measured the KH of it some time ago, I came up with a reading of 4 degrees KH and 5 degrees GH (for all I know it fluctuates, but I don't check it regularly). It also apparently has high levels of CO2 naturally occurring which causes the pH to be low (I have measured the pH coming out of the well to be anywhere from 5.7 to 6.4). This low pH was causing the copper pipes in my house to be eaten away, ruining all of the seals in the faucets, and leaving blue-green stains in the sinks. Therefore, several years ago I installed an acid neutralization system that all of the water for the whole house goes through. According to the company that I bought it from, it has two different materials in it: Calcite (which they said is calcium carbonate, CaCO3) and Corosex (which they said is magnesium oxide, MgO). Once the water goes through this system, it ends up with a neutral pH, 10 degrees KH, and 11 degrees GH. When I do water changes (which I do typically once a month, and change 30% to 50% of the water), I bypass the acid neutralization system and use straight well water. However, when I top off the tank, I don't bother doing this and just use the water that has gone through the system. I only top off the tank when it has evaporated down to the bottom of the trim at the top of the tank, and I usually only have to do this once a week to sometimes once every two weeks.

Now, for another update on the levels in the tank. As of November 29th, I had 22 ppm NO3, 1.05 ppm PO4, and about 20-30 ppm K (still not exactly sure what LaMotte means with this test, but if I had to bet, I would say that it would be 20, but I'm not positive). I'm pleased that the additional KH2PO4 raised the PO4, even though it actually went up more than I guessed that it would. Yesterday I decided to mix up some more macro solution, but this time I dropped the KNO3 to approximately 14% of the normal recipe, and again went with 200% of the normal amount of KH2PO4. I left everything else the same. I'm wondering if getting the NO3 down a little bit more will help the Hygros do even better.

Today the LaMotte iron test kit arrived. When I tested the water in my tank, I came up with a reading of .7 ppm!! I think that the Mayaca fluviatilis is doing okay, although I'm not positive if it is as "lush and green" as it should be. It's not really growing as fast as I was expecting it to, but that's actually okay with me. Here's a picture of it now (note that I haven't trimmed it after my vacation yet):
Plant Natural environment Botany Terrestrial plant Branch


Since the iron is so high, I decided to drop the amount dosed to only 33% of what the normal recipe calls for. I'm curious to see what that does. Ray-the-pilot - I know that you said that you had dropped to 40% of the normal dosage and that it had been working for you. Are you still dosing at that rate?

Thanks,

Andy
 
#36 ·
Yesterday I tested the water again, and found the NO3 to be 16 ppm, the PO4 was 1.0 ppm, the K was 20-30 ppm, and the Fe was .7 ppm. I'm glad to see that the NO3 came down in response to my further reduction of KNO3 in the recipe. As expected, the K and PO4 stayed steady, but I am puzzled as to why the Fe didn't drop after reducing the dosage by 50% for the last week. I decided to drop the dosage by another 50%, which now has me dosing the micros at only about 16% of what the normal recipe calls for. The Mayaca has been growing well, so I'll keep an eye on it to see if this dosage change causes it to do poorly.

Out of curiosity, I decided to check the validity of the LaMotte Iron test kit. I still had the reference solution that I had made up when checking the Seachem test kit, which was supposed to be .4 ppm. With the LaMotte kit I got a reading of .3 ppm (which is way better than the .06 ppm that the Seachem one came up with). Considering that I'm not exactly sure if I mixed up the reference solution absolutely perfectly, I'm okay with that result.

Andy
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top